Explaining something condescendingly is something *people* do to *other people*. There is no need to restrict it. The fact that SOME men do it is irrelevant. Some women do it. It isn't a concept; it is a real thing, that happens.

I don't manwork, or manmakecoffee, or mandrive. I don't maneat. You can make up all sorts of stuff - oh, maneat is when a man eats quickly without using a napkin and gets salad on the floor. I manpiss - I use a urinal, or go standing up. That is something that men do differently from women. So "manpiss" is fine! Not helpful or useful but fine.

So if a non-white poor woman that was sexually abused by the church said they found 'mansplaining' offensive, would you stop?! Can you not accept the idea that it is offensive and that does not help? It just makes people defensive and less likely to be open to actually being better people?

Put it like this - if a woman can mansplain - and there is no reason to think they can't - why call it mansplain? If the shoe was on the other foot.. oh, I don't know, let's just pretend women micromanage, and people started saying "oh yeah, she womanaged me", or "she was trying to womanage me"... Just, no, right? Because a man would be just as capable of womanaging.

Or... he whitesold me a car. Vs blacksold me a car.

I am NOT introducing the concept of women = Nazis. Feminazi is a horrible term and shouldn't be used.

You can't possibly feel the distinction of mansplaining vs condescension as a male the same way that women feel the distinction. You do not have to submit to the societal power structures men put in place towards women. There are many times that a man (or a woman) has spoken to me condescendingly and I would not call it mansplaining.

There are however times, when a man inserts a ridiculous argument, or assumes a fake role of power to attempt to shut a woman up and explain to her some asinine argument they believe to be true. It frequently involves interrupting the person speaking, it is often non-sequitur, or so blatantly obvious that it just doesn't need to be said. But the person is so absolutely clueless as to the tone in the room or the concept being spoken about or to the comprehension of their audience that they believe it's their God given right to explain the shit out of something. THAT is mansplaining. It is distinctively different in that it's situational and implies that a man is overtaking the power structure, cutting a woman off and demonstrating their dominance in a situation.

please explain 1) how the term is not an accurate neologism for a real phenomenon, 2) how that phenomenon is not a type of behaviour by men which should be seen in a negative light, 3) why a negative behaviour by men should not be framed in a negative way and 4) what alternative "positive" term you would like to coin to accurately frame this negative behaviour.

1) Evidence that men do this more than women? All I see is anecdotes.2) Because most men don't do it more than most women, therefore it is not accurate3) It is prejudicial, casting a group of people in a negative light regardless of their behaviour, though it is far from the worst term going around and nearly the only one aimed at men4) Why is a term needed? Can't we just say "telling people things they already know" which is more accurate, has no negativity associated, and is useful in 75% more situations?On a scale of sexual stereotypes: "guys" to mixed gender crowd (inaccurate but no negativity) --> "mansplaining" (inaccurate and somewhat negative) --> --> "feminazi" (inaccurate and negative in every way)

"One of the first really striking changes I (male-to-female) noticed was that it's completely and totally accurate that women get talked over a lot. I knew this already on a logical level, but experiencing it after I started socially and medically transitioning was still a jarring experience.

ďThere have been so many times where co-workers, supervisors and just the general public have decided to talk over me regardless of the topic, and this includes people who knew me before my transition.Ē

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

Here's a handy little chart. I don't think men really understand what mansplaining feels like because no one does it to them and they don't always realize when they are doing it. It's also hilarious that there are way more derogatory terms aimed specifically at women, but the second we have one negative term about men they get all up in arms over it.

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.

Thanks for mansplaining that to me.

Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

I engaged you in discussion, I did not silence you. I feel like this is some sort of test. I suppose I'll "take it like a man" and accept *your* definition on what *I* find offensive and move on.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

I engaged you in discussion, I did not silence you. I feel like this is some sort of test. I suppose I'll "take it like a man" and accept *your* definition on what *I* find offensive and move on.

What makes you think my words are a "test"? I'm advancing an argument to which you are welcome to respond (not sure how I'd stop you responding?) If you have a response to my argument that takes the discussion forward I'm happy to read it.

The argument I made was that "mansplaining" defines a concept that you agree is revolting but that the word is not itself revolting independent of that concept. If the word does not have an independently revolting meaning, then any objection to it is necessarily an objection to being called out for the concept. Objecting to being called out for the concept is understandable (no one likes to be criticised, particularly when the criticism is justified) but not a reason for censoring the word used in that criticism.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

No, men who are not the guilty party think that it's offensive to be grouped in with someone who is being condescending because they are male. I would have thought the idea that attaching negative behavior to a group of people based on their sex would be a pretty obvious case of stereotyping. stereotyping = bad.

But as others arguing against the word have said, they (and I) don't really care that much. The real problem is that some people do. it's just shooting feminism in the foot and giving those who don't want to correct they're behavior an excuse to say "You're a hypocrite and therefore I'm not listening to you"

It's also hilarious that there are way more derogatory terms aimed specifically at women, but the second we have one negative term about men they get all up in arms over it.

I absolutely agree, but let's just be clear that they are in the same category. I strive not to use negative terms about people based on their gender or race, and people who do similarly should realize that "mansplaining" is one of those. On a related note I also object to "man caves" and was about to use negative words about people who have them before I stopped myself.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

I engaged you in discussion, I did not silence you. I feel like this is some sort of test. I suppose I'll "take it like a man" and accept *your* definition on what *I* find offensive and move on.

What makes you think my words are a "test"? I'm advancing an argument to which you are welcome to respond (not sure how I'd stop you responding?) If you have a response to my argument that takes the discussion forward I'm happy to read it.

The argument I made was that "mansplaining" defines a concept that you agree is revolting but that the word is not itself revolting independent of that concept. If the word does not have an independently revolting meaning, then any objection to it is necessarily an objection to being called out for the concept. Objecting to being called out for the concept is understandable (no one likes to be criticised, particularly when the criticism is justified) but not a reason for censoring the word used in that criticism.

Isn't this how all stereotyping works though? Everyone agrees that cheating is bad so if we attach that concept to a group of people, we're stereotyping. Like saying someone gypped me. This attaches the idea of cheating to gypsies. (which I was not aware of until this thread because I never knew the spelling, thanks to whoever posted that)

You may be thinking there's a reason that this behavior is being attached to men as they do it more often, but that's beside the point. Lots of racist and sexist people have been using the excuse "stereotypes exist for a reason" for ages now.

Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).

That's why it's not politically correct.

What is not politically correct? Dragoncar at reply #209 accused me of mansplaining. I haven't described anyone as mansplaining. So is it Dragoncar who was not being politically correct? Or me at post #207 to which Dragoncar was responding?

It's also hilarious that there are way more derogatory terms aimed specifically at women, but the second we have one negative term about men they get all up in arms over it.

I absolutely agree, but let's just be clear that they are in the same category. I strive not to use negative terms about people based on their gender or race, and people who do similarly should realize that "mansplaining" is one of those. On a related note I also object to "man caves" and was about to use negative words about people who have them before I stopped myself.

The problem here as I see it is that the start of the problem is a negative action based on gender. What is not described is usually ignored, so there is a use to describing the action. That description will inevitably attract to itself the negativity ascribed to the action. Naturally it would be wrong to generalise the action "all men are mansplainers" would clearly be wrong, derogative, based on gender and completely inappropriate in any circumstances. Saying "this particular man patronisingly explained something to a woman that she already knows" would if true be appropriate. Saying "this particular man mansplained at this particular woman" is apparently inappropriate because it uses the word "man" in an unflattering context? The problem with that analysis is that it does not distinguish between inherent characteristics (man, woman, etc. which are immutable and in polite society are protected from derogatory words being attached to those inherent characteristics) and actions. The right and proper protection for inherent characteristics is being extended beyond inherent characteristics to something else. That is a signficant extension of the concept of political correctness.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?

Oh, man (no pun intended). You really donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).

Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:

1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using ó and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.

3) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.

I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.

Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.

If you think thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.

I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a manís help.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?

Oh, man (no pun intended). You really donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).

Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:

1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using ó and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.

3) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.

I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.

Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.

If you think thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.

I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a manís help.

"Mansplaining" is relatively mild, but I find the double standard here interesting. Some of us men here aren't in favor of the term and our argument is picked apart instead of accepted. A turn of the tables I suppose.

Are you suggesting that women should accept illogical arguments just because they are made by men? Women should silence themselves in the presence of men just to keep the peace?

I'm suggesting that the standards regarding offensive words be applied across the board. I find men explaining things to women as if they were incompetent revolting. I find calling it "mansplaining" offensive. There are tons of words to express the idea, but if even feminists and the essay writer credited for explaining the phenomona question and oppose the term, along with some men it seems-the term is probably harmful.

So you find the concept of "mansplaining" revolting. Good. The word used to describe that concept is not separately and independently revolting regardless of its meaning: words themselves as a collection of consonants and vowels are not revolting, they are revolting only because of the concepts attached to them. The word "mansplaining" is therefore revolting only because it is attached to a concept that is revolting.

You say there are ton of words to express the concept of mansplaining. There are many phrases that can explain the concept but I know of no other single words that do the same job. Do please share them with me.

The "harm" in the word "mansplaining" appears to be that men don't like being called out for it and react unfavourably. So women are again silenced in order not to offend men and suffer the consequences of that offence.

The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?

Oh, man (no pun intended). You really donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).

Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:

1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using ó and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.

3) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.

I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.

Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.

If you think thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.

I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a manís help.

The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?

Oh, man (no pun intended). You really donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).

Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:

1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using ó and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.

3) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.

I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.

Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.

If you think thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.

I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a manís help.

I... I think it was sarcasm.

Huh. I fail to see the indicators.

Yeah.. maybe not, I just... thought it had to be, because it is just *so* backward.

The harm in the word "mansplaining" is that it is, by design, a generalisation and seeks to tar all men with the shame of some men trying to be helpful and explain things to women who evidently did not properly communicate their prior knowledge on the topic. Personally, I find people who hide their light under a bushel and sit quietly without assisting others to be abhorrent. If people (typically women) can't be trusted to help when all it takes is the effort to redirect some of their breath over some vocal chords, or perhaps use some appropriate body language, what can they be trusted with?

Oh, man (no pun intended). You really donít get what mansplaining is.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).

Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:

1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using ó and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.

3) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.

I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.

Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.

If you think thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.

I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a manís help.

I... I think it was sarcasm.

Huh. I fail to see the indicators.

Yeah.. maybe not, I just... thought it had to be, because it is just *so* backward.

Yes. Yes it is.

Thank you for recognizing it. And even more, for saying it ďout loud.Ē We women need more of that from men.

Iím on my phone and hate typing long stuff on this thing. But, mansplaining is not a result of women ďnot properly communicating their prior knowledgeĒ (nice victim blaming, by the way).

that was intentional and done for lols, thanks for picking up on it but answering anyway! Of note is offence you took from the generalisation.

Quote

Three recent examples of mansplaining I have encountered:

1) I am parked by the side of the street in a well-populated commercial area, putting a quart of oil in my car because it drinks oil (just the way this model is, I have talked to my mechanic about this, I always keep a quart in my trunk, no biggie). A guy stops his car (blocking the road), and asks me if I need help. I politely tell him Iím good. He tells me I should have a funnel for the oil, and asks me if Iím sure I have the right kind of oil for my car. He also tells me I should be more careful and not let my oil run that low. All this while Iím just doing what I need to do. By this time, Iím getting irritated, but try not to show it, because you never know when a guy is going to get mean if you are anything but polite and smiley. When I lower the hood and say, ďThanks for the advice. But Iíve got it under control.Ē He rolls his eyes like Iím an idiot and drives away.

2) (This one will be familiar to many women.) Iím at the gym. Wearing ear buds. Iím using weight machines. A guy comes up and starts talking to me. Since I have music on, I canít hear him, and have to pull my ear buds out. He proceeds to start giving me instructions on how to use the machine that I am currently using ó and have used multiple times a week for quite a while. When I tell him I know how, he gives me a frustrated look, and makes some more noises, but I put my ear buds back in my ear and try to just ignore him and concentrate. He does it again on another machine a few minutes later. He is not a trainer. He is also using too much weight on his own machines, and his form is awful.

3) Iím at a gate at the airport waiting for a flight. The guy across from me notices the cover of my book, and since itís a bit heady, asks me why Iím reading it. When I tell him, he goes off on a long diatribe about the subject of the book, basically giving me a private class without ever stopping to ask me whether I am interested or whether I might have some opinions.

I have a Ph.D. in this subject. When I finally manage to convey that I have some knowledge myself, and tell him this, it does NOT turn into a more balanced conversation. He just keeps holding court as though I have said nothing. By the way, he knew very little about the subject. Much of what he said was wrong.

Once again, though, I tried to be nice. Because I have had instances of this kind of behavior where the response by the man when I am more blunt (thank you, but Iím really not interested/in need of your help/opinion/assistance), and the response I get is not, ďoh, Iím sorry to intrude.Ē Itís anger, veiled or unveiled. In some instances, itís verbal abuse, with or without expletives and insults about my physique. I have never been physically assaulted in a situation like that, fortunately.

If you think thatís because I did not ďproperly communicate...Ē well, Iím sorry, but you are wrong. And as a woman who has had a lifetime of this shit... I am restraining myself from saying things that are stronger.

I can give you more. But here is the point: in all of these situations ó and in every one of the situations that I would class as mansplaining ó I not only never asked to be approached, I never asked for an opinion, or aid. I never gave any indication I was in distress, or in need of a manís help.

I actually honestly thought that items 2 & 3 of your examples above are mainly clumsy attempts to engage in conversation. The first one was actually helpful because you should have a funnel to reduce the risk of spilling oil into the local stream (via the stormwater system).... seriously, go buy a funnel.

My understanding was that mansplaining was used more broadly than "failed pickup" scenarios. In those scenarios the topic is not the issue, it is the unwanted social interaction. I'd say that the hostility stems from the rejection of that interaction, not from the level of expertise on the topic at hand. If the use of the word were restricted to unwanted social interaction I'd start using it myself! Maybe we could start using the word "extrovert" as a insult??

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.

Thanks for mansplaining that to me.

Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).

You donít need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were

In summary, it appears that language has evolved over hundreds of years to express with a variety of words that people are sick of men explaining shit.

Lets say that the extent to which negative stereotypes are unacceptable depends on two factors: their degree of inaccuracy, and their degree of implied negativity. If something is both accurate and has no negative implication, then it is OK.

"Patronizing" is a stereotype and it means "acting as a father to a child," but it is more accurate because it describes a narrower set of male behaviour compared to "mansplaining" which means "acting as a man does whenever he explains something." I also see less implied negativity in "patronizing." Therefore I see patronizing as acceptable, but not mansplaining. On the grander scale of negative stereotypes mansplaining is pretty mild, but it is still on the scale.

Please don't misrepresent the meaning of "mansplaining" in order to defend your position. It is not "acting as a man does whenever he explains something" it is "a man patronisingly explaining something to a woman that she already knows".

Else you will include the man who answered when you called tech support and politely explained exactly how to solve your problem, even though that was the opposite situation of what you intended, with the only shared aspect being a man who explained something.

You are failing to fully understand. Let me explain again. Your example does not work because the tech support person (not always a man in my experience by the way) is telling me something I don't know and have specifically asked. A mansplainer is telling me something I already know when I haven't asked.

Thanks for mansplaining that to me.

Please explain how what I said fulfilled the definition of "mansplaining". (Here's your first hint: I'm not a man).

You donít need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were

I'm perfectly happy to admit to patronising, which is an equal opportunity failing (that word has long outgrown the specific "father to child" meaning). Just in this particular set of quotes I've had three goes at trying to elicit an explanation as to why "mansplaining" is sexist and failed, my patience at illogicality and sexism is not unlimited. My apologies if you were offended.

As to whether one needs to be a man to mansplain, I think you do: that is the whole point of the coinage - it describes something which falls within the general descriptor "patronising" but is more specific: it is a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows when she hasn't asked him to.

After all these pages I still haven't seen anything which explains to me why the word "mansplaining" is sexist, other than that it contains the word "man" in a context which is not wholly admiring of some male behaviour.

Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?). The word "mansplaining" uses a gendered word ("man") as part of a description of gendered behaviour which is sexist. The phrase "white privilege" uses a race-specific word ("white") as part of a description of race-based behaviour which is racist. Saying the word "mansplaining" is sexist is the equivalent of saying "white privilege" is racist. Would anyone here say to a black person using the phrase "white privilege" that they were being racist? I hope not. In the same way I would hope that a man wouldn't say to a woman that using the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but it's not a hope that is born out by reality.

Interesting point regarding "white privilege." Another phrase that has some truth, and yet people have vehement reactions to. I don't think it's a comparable phrase though because it's not ascribing a particular negative behavior to a specific race.

As for why "mansplain" is offensive, I'll leave the words to Rebecca Solnit, who wrote the essay originally credited with the concept of manplaining:

"It seems to me to go a little heavy on the idea that men are inherently flawed this way, rather than that some men explain things they shouldn't and don't hear things they should."

Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.

Here's one example. In graduate school I wanted to work with the professor who was a specialist in visual perception and I already had research background in that area. But he quickly let me know he was no longer taking on students. I took another advisor. The following year he took on a (male) advisee. And I understood; he was only accepting (male) students. A year or so after the professor taught an advanced tutorial on perception. Although I was in a different area I took the advance class because I find the field interesting. The first exam was reading the entirety of E.G. Boring's book on perception and being warned that anything in the book might be on the test. And said something to the effect while we were all smart, he predicted his student would do very well. When returning the exams, he uncomfortably said that only one student got a perfect score, mumbled my name under his breath, and then returned the exams to us.

Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.

Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.

Just getting the popcorn out : ). I'm older than Kris and woman of my age (50) have both experienced mansplaining through life without having a term for it, but appreciate its coinage. Do I go out and use the term all the time? No but most women when they hear the term, know EXACTLY what it means. I am a blonde who has a PhD in the sciences; I'll leave it at that. When it happened to me it didn't really bother me in the sense I grew up with it and and it was just part of the landscape, so to speak. So if I'm cool with being mansplained to multiple times in my life, I should think guys should be cool with the "existence" of the term. It didn't come out of thin air. Hopefully now that we have the word, guys will refrain from doing it, and then the word will fall out of usage, hence dying a natural death.

Interesting point regarding "white privilege." Another phrase that has some truth, and yet people have vehement reactions to. I don't think it's a comparable phrase though because it's not ascribing a particular negative behavior to a specific race.

As for why "mansplain" is offensive, I'll leave the words to Rebecca Solnit, who wrote the essay originally credited with the concept of manplaining:

"It seems to me to go a little heavy on the idea that men are inherently flawed this way, rather than that some men explain things they shouldn't and don't hear things they should."

So the opinion of 1 woman should be trusted as law over the experiences of multiple women here? Quoting the same person over and over doesn’t somehow increase their validity.

The excerpt you quoted insinuates that she takes issue with people thinking all men are mansplainers. She then proceeds to state that only some are, using different terms.

So if your only beef is that “not all men” do, then there you go. Not all men do. Some never do, some occasionally uncharacteristicly do and some are flagrant and unrepentant. I’d like to think we women give men the benefit of the doubt and reserve the phrase for the last segment.

Interesting point regarding "white privilege." Another phrase that has some truth, and yet people have vehement reactions to. I don't think it's a comparable phrase though because it's not ascribing a particular negative behavior to a specific race.

As for why "mansplain" is offensive, I'll leave the words to Rebecca Solnit, who wrote the essay originally credited with the concept of manplaining:

"It seems to me to go a little heavy on the idea that men are inherently flawed this way, rather than that some men explain things they shouldn't and don't hear things they should."

So the opinion of 1 woman should be trusted as law over the experiences of multiple women here? Quoting the same person over and over doesnít somehow increase their validity.

The excerpt you quoted insinuates that she takes issue with people thinking all men are mansplainers. She then proceeds to state that only some are, using different terms.

So if your only beef is that ďnot all menĒ do, then there you go. Not all men do. Some never do, some occasionally uncharacteristicly do and some are flagrant and unrepentant. Iíd like to think we women give men the benefit of the doubt and reserve the phrase for the last segment.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. I've never really seen a woman use the term except for those instances. The vast majority of the men I personally know and am friends with do not mansplain.

You donít need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were

I'm perfectly happy to admit to patronising, which is an equal opportunity failing (that word has long outgrown the specific "father to child" meaning). Just in this particular set of quotes I've had three goes at trying to elicit an explanation as to why "mansplaining" is sexist and failed, my patience at illogicality and sexism is not unlimited. My apologies if you were offended.

As to whether one needs to be a man to mansplain, I think you do: that is the whole point of the coinage - it describes something which falls within the general descriptor "patronising" but is more specific: it is a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows when she hasn't asked him to.

After all these pages I still haven't seen anything which explains to me why the word "mansplaining" is sexist, other than that it contains the word "man" in a context which is not wholly admiring of some male behaviour.

Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?). The word "mansplaining" uses a gendered word ("man") as part of a description of gendered behaviour which is sexist. The phrase "white privilege" uses a race-specific word ("white") as part of a description of race-based behaviour which is racist. Saying the word "mansplaining" is sexist is the equivalent of saying "white privilege" is racist. Would anyone here say to a black person using the phrase "white privilege" that they were being racist? I hope not. In the same way I would hope that a man wouldn't say to a woman that using the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but it's not a hope that is born out by reality.

It's incredibly sexist to assume only men can mansplain. I support equal opportunity for all condescending jerks, regardless of gender. All men are created equal, after all.

Why don't you just man up and admit you are wrong?

While I'm waiting, I'll be in my wife's man cave, manning the fort. It's out in no man's land, so obviously it's safe from hit men.

Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?).

Because it is a deplorable term, and I was trying to make a point, and another analogy didn't come to mind. Not because I think feminists are nazis, which is - I assume - what you are implying I think.

You donít need to be a man to mansplain any more than you need to be a patron to be patronizing. Which you were

I'm perfectly happy to admit to patronising, which is an equal opportunity failing (that word has long outgrown the specific "father to child" meaning). Just in this particular set of quotes I've had three goes at trying to elicit an explanation as to why "mansplaining" is sexist and failed, my patience at illogicality and sexism is not unlimited. My apologies if you were offended.

As to whether one needs to be a man to mansplain, I think you do: that is the whole point of the coinage - it describes something which falls within the general descriptor "patronising" but is more specific: it is a man explaining something to a woman that she already knows when she hasn't asked him to.

After all these pages I still haven't seen anything which explains to me why the word "mansplaining" is sexist, other than that it contains the word "man" in a context which is not wholly admiring of some male behaviour.

Let me try a somewhat better analogy than the "feminazi" one used upthread (wonder why that word came to someone's mind, huh?). The word "mansplaining" uses a gendered word ("man") as part of a description of gendered behaviour which is sexist. The phrase "white privilege" uses a race-specific word ("white") as part of a description of race-based behaviour which is racist. Saying the word "mansplaining" is sexist is the equivalent of saying "white privilege" is racist. Would anyone here say to a black person using the phrase "white privilege" that they were being racist? I hope not. In the same way I would hope that a man wouldn't say to a woman that using the word "mansplaining" is sexist, but it's not a hope that is born out by reality.

It's incredibly sexist to assume only men can mansplain. I support equal opportunity for all condescending jerks, regardless of gender. All men are created equal, after all.

Why don't you just man up and admit you are wrong?

While I'm waiting, I'll be in my wife's man cave, manning the fort. It's out in no man's land, so obviously it's safe from hit men.

I feel this does not need to be explained but yes not all men or even the majority of men mansplain.

That's not what the term implies. The term implies all men. Otherwise "patronizing" or "condescending" would be the term that's used.

Using your explanation, I feel that most racial and sexist slurs can be used freely as long as it's acknowledged that not all minorities/genders/races are guilty of fulfilling the stereotype.

He "jewed" me. Now I know not all Jews are out to rip me off, I have some Jewish friends that say this term is fine because they don't rip me off, and well some Jews really do rip people off . This term cool?

I'd like to think that if nothing else, we all learned that @former player is f*ing awesome

My vote goes to dragoncar. :-P

I have to say I'm pretty humbled by the fact that 2 PhDs have weighed in. I can't say I fully understand the struggles women in all stratas have to undergo daily, but my eyes have been opened more. Individual situations can be explained away, but patterns remain. Credit to those who've spoken up, and to former player for putting that specific idea into my brain. I'm a bit more reserved in judgement and less cynical on social justice issues as a result of this whole discussion.